Paper claims eTrucks with range of 800 km need batteries heavier than the allowed weight for truck+load in the EU today.
That's ~10x too much.
Quick takedown thread.
Here's the quote I'm reacting to.
(I've not dissected the rest of the paper.)
Let me calculate for you why this is bollox.
How big is a battery for 800km?
I had a couple of master students study the issue and we concluded that with aero fairings and low rolling resistance tires, the average energy use per km would be close to 1.3 kWh/km.
Of course we are not there yet so I'm glad the the EU added an allowance of 2000 kg to zero emission trucks.
By the way: trucks are usually volume constrained (the container is full) and not weight constrained (the container is too heavy) which is why hydrogen has a problem.
Before I wrap up: I agree with the writers that we should limit our resource use and that our amount of travel and how we travel is wasteful.
But I am sick and tired of degrowth proponents that bend the facts in order for their dogma to become truth. That doesn't solve anything.
Conclusion: well designed modern low emission heavy eTrucks with 800 km of range are less than 2 tonnes (5%) heavier than diesel equivalents.
They will become LIGHTER around 2025-2030.
Don't let any degrowth proponent using heavily outdated literature tell you otherwise.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The heathen Gods have gathered on mount Olympus for a feast. Sun god Apollo is recognizable by his halo, Bacchus (Dionysus) by the grapes, Neptune (Poseidon) by his trident, Diana (Artemis) by the moon, Venus (Aphrodite) by Cupid.
If you add batteries to solar PV, not all energy has to flow through batteries. But let's keep it at $0.01 and add that to the price of solar. That makes PV (and wind) SUPER cheap!
Batteries must be discounted more quickly you say?
Cheap stationary batteries will pave the way for wind and solar in cheap and resilient energy grids. Unfortunately the @IEA is mispredicting it (again).
Many of my followers know this picture: it visualizes how the IEA underestimates solar. Now I see basically the same problem in their new battery report.
The IEAs new battery report gives a lot of great info on batteries but also two predictions taken from their authoritative world energy outlook: 1) STEPS which is basically business as usual 2) NZE (Net Zero Emissions) which is aspirational iea.org/reports/batter…
I used the Sunday afternoot to describe how I think that dirt cheap batteries will completely transform our electricity grid, paving the way for solar and wind and replacing grid reinforcements with grid buffers aukehoekstra.substack.com/p/batteries-ho…
This is something I'm working on for different government and grid operator projects, but I never realized just how cheap sodium batteries could become and how much of a game changer that will be.
So I used my Sunday evening to write this and would love your feedback!
First I look at the learning curve and then we see it is extremely predictable: every doubling of production has reduced prices by around 25%.
It's even steeper and more predictable than solar panels, the poster child of this type of learning curve.
(More details on substack.)
Aaaand we have another winner of the "EVs and renewables can never happen because of material scarcety" sweepstake. I thought @pwrhungry was more serious. Let me explain why this is misleading bollox.
First of all, notice how his argument is mainly that Vaclav Smil says this and HE is an authority.
Why bother to write a substack that basically parrots someone else?
Because you don't really understand it yourself and needed to write another substack maybe?
I'm a bit tired of this because Bryce abuses Smil the same way most people who are against renewables abuse him. They emphasize this is a serious and revered figure that knows numbers. They make it about the messenger, not the argument.